Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA08860 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:27:48 GMT X-Sender: email@example.com Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> In-Reply-To: <002f01c17f4d$fa0ab6a0$d286b2d1@teddace> References: <200112070341.fB73faZ06668@sherri.harvard.edu> <002f01c17f4d$fa0ab6a0$d286b2d1@teddace> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 14:22:37 -0500 To: email@example.com From: "Wade T. Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Research With Drosophila Provides Clues to Enhancing Human Memory Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>Memory is a function of two principles: the conservation of
>intrinsic form and the resonance of current form with past, similar form.
Like I said, memory is very simply and only a function of the brain.
I haven't the slightest idea why you bring in intrinsic form and
resonance of anything, much less the past. Memory is very much a
function of the living brain, and very much a 'now' sort of thing.
I brought in the basic animal experiments to show this.
>How can one form of
>habitual memory-- learned behavior-- be stored by cells in the brain, while
>the other form of habitual memory-- instinctive behavior-- is stored in
>macrmolecules in the nucleus of every cell of the body? Until this is
>explained, the whole theory is suspect.
Learning is a function of the developed brain, using memory (and a
slew of other things), and in no way is anyone saying that instinct
is 'stored' in every nucleus of the body. Instinct (genetic behavior)
is a function of the life form itself- it _is_ intrinsic, or at least
the potential for it is (providing development is not truncated or
narrowed, as in the case of malnutrition and/or social class.)
>Sheldrake's hypothesis of "formative causation" is clearly the
>default theory of memory.
It's at fault, all right. But, I'll grant you that memory is a mere
function of even a minimally developed nervous system, thus
formatively caused by the development of the creature.
>Sheldrake explains organisms as if they were actually alive, not just
>machines that fool themselves into thinking they're alive.
I still have never seen anyone claim any lifeform is sitting around
fooling itself into thinking it's alive.
Maybe some people are trying to get computers to do that, in science
fiction novels, but, I don't see even that anywhere else.
Then they'd want food.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 07 2001 - 19:34:14 GMT